Comment: Not sure if the "market grade" business has any bearing on whether or not "Yellow Stained" should really be hyphenated.

+

+

On the other hand, the official market grade name seems to be written without a hyphen as Yellow Stained ([http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/441-strict-middling-yellow-stained-19898056 7 CFR 28.441]).

+

--[[User:John Hostage|John Hostage]] 04:07, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

+

+

+

B.11

+

+

Current text: U.S.

+

+

Changed text: US

+

+

Rationale (cite CMOS): 10.4

+

+

Note: I realize the weight of my suggestion and, thus, don't expect it to go anywhere. I did want to cite it, though, as a change that would technically be needed to make RDA conform to the ''Chicago Manual of Style''. (In this case, it's probably preferable for RDA to stray from the CMOS.)

+

+

By weight of your suggestion do you mean the potential impact on the authority file if headings were actually to be changed? I agree that it is unlikely for changes that impact the authority file to be undertaken anytime soon (nor would they exactly be a good use of anybody's time). It's good to cite, though, just for information purposes. --Dragon 5/10/12

+

+

CMOS is designed for publications and not for cataloging. 10.4 also says that for publications using traditional abbreviations for states, as RDA does, "U.S." may be used. So there is no need for a change in RDA B.11. --[[User:John Hostage|John Hostage]] 04:07, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

+

+

+

----

== Capitalization changes (Dominique)==

== Capitalization changes (Dominique)==

Line 139:

Line 175:

If the guidelines require the capitalization of a hyphenated compound, capitalize the first part, and capitalize the second, etc., part if it is a noun or a proper adjective or if it has the same force as the first part.

If the guidelines require the capitalization of a hyphenated compound, capitalize the first part, and capitalize the second, etc., part if it is a noun or a proper adjective or if it has the same force as the first part.

+

Do not capitalize the second part if it modifies the first part or if the two parts constitute a single word.

Do not capitalize the second part if it modifies the first part or if the two parts constitute a single word.

Line 144:

Line 181:

Changed text:

Changed text:

−

add:

+

If the guidelines require the capitalization of a hyphenated compound, capitalize the first part.

−

Capitalize the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number or simple fraction

+

+

Capitalize the second, etc., part unless it is an article, a preposition, or a coordinating conjunction, or if it modifies the first part in musical key symbols.

+

+

Unless it is a proper name or adjective, do not capitalize the second, etc., part if the first part is a prefix, or if it cannot stand by itself.

+

+

Capitalize the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number or simple fraction.

Rationale (cite CMOS):

Rationale (cite CMOS):

−

8.159 (this rule is for hyphenated compounds in headline-style titles but has been incorporated to other rules where capitalization is required, see for ex. Forty-Second Street below)

+

8.159

+

+

Note:

+

+

1. RDA A.29 rule follows CMOS15 8.169 simple rule for hyphenated compounds in titles. This simple rule does not appear in CMOS16. The CMOS15 tradional rule for hyphenated compounds in headline-style titles (8.170) is the only option that has been carried over into CMOS16 (8.159). It has been updated to also include a rule for hyphenated spelled-out numbers/fractions.

+

+

2. These rules are for hyphenated compounds in headline-style titles but have been incorporated to other rules where capitalization is required, see for ex. Forty-Second Street below.

+

+

All the hyphenated terms below need to be changed if the RDA rule for hyphenated compounds is changed:

----

----

Line 193:

Line 243:

Current text: John the Twenty-third

Current text: John the Twenty-third

−

Changed text: John the Twenty-Third

+

Changed text: John the Twenty-Third (?)

Line 210:

Line 260:

Changed text:

Changed text:

−

Capitalize the name of a building, monument, or other structure; and the name of a road or street. Do not capitalize generic terms when they are used alone but capitalized them when they are used as part of a plural name.

+

Capitalize the name of a building, monument, or other structure; and the name of a road or street. Do not capitalize generic terms when they are used alone but capitalize them when they are used as part of a plural name. [I made a correction: capitalized => capitalize Ian F. 5/18/12]

Line 290:

Line 340:

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.159

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.159

+

+

+

----

+

+

A.10 General Guideline

+

+

Current text:

+

+

Capitalize a plural generic term when it precedes the distinctive nouns in two or more proper names. Do not capitalize the generic term when it follows the nouns.

+

+

+

Changed text:

+

+

Capitalize a plural generic term when it precedes or follows the distinctive nouns in two or more proper names.

+

+

+

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.52, 8.55, 8.112

+

+

+

----

+

+

A.10

+

+

Current text: Authorized and Revised versions

+

+

Changed text: Authorized and Revised Versions

+

+

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.52, 8.55, 8.112

+

+

Note: This example needs to be moved with the previous set of example. But this is a strange example. I am not sure when Authorized Version and Revised Version could be considered proper names. [surely this refers to the Bible? Though I agree that the two phrases are not necessarily proper names. This is borderline. Ian F. 5/18/12]

+

+

+

An example like American and French Revolutions would be much clearer. [But "American and French Revolutions" does not contain a generic term, am I right? Ian F. 5/18/12]

+

+

“Industry and Trade departments” needs to remain where it is because the proper names are Department of Industry and Department of Trade. ["Department of Industry" and "Department of Trade" may be the ''official'' proper names, but "Industry and Trade departments" looks to me like a conflation of two ''unofficial'' but still nevertheless ''valid'' proper names, i.e. "Industry Department" and "Trade Department". Ian F. 5/18/12]

+

+

The example doesn't say which country the Industry and Trade Departments are supposed to be from, so it is idle speculation to say what the "official" names are. The point of A.10 is to make a distinction between a generic term (i.e. common to 2 or more proper names) occurring before or after the names. So the example should be ''Industry and Trade Departments'' to follow CMOS practice in similar situations. ''Authorized Version'' is capitalized is capitalized according to CMOS 8.103, so ''Authorized and Revised Versions'' would be correct.

Authorized access points representing the signatories to an agreement for: Memorandum of agreement between the government of the province of Ontario and the government of Canada pursuant to section 4(3) of the Anti-Inflation Act

+

+

+

Changed text: Anti-inflation Act (?)

+

+

Authorized access points representing the signatories to an agreement for: Memorandum of agreement between the government of the province of Ontario and the government of Canada pursuant to section 4(3) of the Anti-inflation Act

+

+

+

Rationale: 8.159

+

Note: Also in 6.29.1.18

+

+

+

----

+

6.30.2.2

+

+

+

Current text: Forty-sixth

+

+

Three Psalms. Contains the Eighth, Forty-sixth, and One hundredth Psalm

+

+

+

Changed text: Forty-Sixth (?)

+

+

Three Psalms. Contains the Eighth, Forty-Sixth, and One hundredth Psalm [I think this was intended the second time around: "Three Psalms. Contains the Eighth, Forty-Sixth, and One Hundredth Psalm" Ian F. 5/18/12]

+

+

+

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.159. 8.104 explains that Psalms should be capitalized but does not show a numbered psalm. 8.106 Prayers, creeds, and such lists: "Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses"). But it could be that CMOS considers this a headline-style title.

+

+

----

+

+

6.2.2.4

+

+

Current text: pre-Raphaelite

+

+

Preferred title for work by William Gaunt later published under the title: The pre-Raphaelite dream

+

+

+

Changed text: Pre-Raphaelite

+

+

Preferred title for work by William Gaunt later published under the title: The Pre-Raphaelite dream

+

+

+

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.78

+

+

Note: Not a change from CMOS15 to 16. I could not find a rule for capitalization of movements and styles in RDA. RDA A.19 says to capitalize names of historical and cultural events and periods.

+

+

----

+

+

9.2.2.25

+

Current text: Book-keeping

+

A Teacher of Book-keeping

+

Statement of responsibility: by a Teacher of Book-keeping

+

+

+

Changed text: Book-Keeping

+

A Teacher of Book-Keeping

+

Statement of responsibility: by a Teacher of Book-Keeping

+

+

Rationale (Cite CMOS): 8.159

+

+

---

+

Not sure:

+

3.20.1.3 Filmslip mounted in rigid format for use with Phono-viewer

+

+

Should it be Phono-Viewer?

+

+

+

+

----

+

+

'''Etc. or etc. in headline-style titles'''

+

+

In headline-style titles “etc.” is usually found in RDA as “Etc.” But in Appendix D and E, “etc.” is usually found as “etc.” in the column on the right. On the column on the left, which does not follow headline-style titles “etc.” is usually found correctly as “etc.” However, in one case, it is found as “Etc.”

+

+

+

Examples -- headline-style titles:

+

+

6.22. Signatory to a Treaty, Etc.

+

Appendix D. 6.22 Signatory to a Treaty, etc.

+

+

+

Examples—not headline-style titles:

+

+

Appendix E. Additions to uniform titles for treaties, etc.

+

+

Appendix E. Additions to uniform titles for treaties, Etc.

+

+

+

About “etc.” in headline-style titles, CMOS says:

+

+

Q. If etc. falls at the end of a title of a work, should it be capitalized or left lowercased? The argument against capitalization is that the et part of the abbreviation is a conjunction and the c part represents the final word (cetera). No one here argues for etC., of course, but my argument is that once et cetera is abbreviated to etc. the two words become one, so that etc. is therefore the last word, not the last two words, in the headline or title, and that it should be capitalized as Etc.

+

+

A. I like your reasoning, especially if the word is important to the title: “Murder Etc.” On the other hand, by reversing your logic you might get away with lowercasing when etc. is an insignificant, tacked-on ending (pace CMOS 8.167): “Schneeweisschean Applications of Jungian Typologies: Dopey, Happy, Bashful, Grumpy, etc.”

CDROM in 2.20.10.3 and 3.20.1.3 but CD-ROM in 2.20.2.3, 3.20.1.3, 25.1.1.3, 27.1.1.3, 19.2.1.3, and Glossary. Does it matter?

+

+

Example in 3.20.1.3 is probably a transcription, but otherwise it should be CD-ROM, IMHO. --[[User:John Hostage|John Hostage]] 05:13, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

== Italicization changes (Ian) ==

== Italicization changes (Ian) ==

Line 309:

Line 634:

Rationale (cite CMOS):<br>

Rationale (cite CMOS):<br>

The only other "change" mentioned in some sources is not really a change, but rather a continued recommendation that "they" not be used in place of "he or she." In general, bias-free language has been emphasized in CMOS16. A quick search of RDA did not reveal any slip-ups in this regard.

The only other "change" mentioned in some sources is not really a change, but rather a continued recommendation that "they" not be used in place of "he or she." In general, bias-free language has been emphasized in CMOS16. A quick search of RDA did not reveal any slip-ups in this regard.

+

+

[I found one typo to be reported, the omission of a closing parens:

+

A.18 Names of Documents Marshall Plan (but the plan

+

Ian F. 5/18/12]

==Where the Chicago Manual is mentioned in RDA (Patricia)==

==Where the Chicago Manual is mentioned in RDA (Patricia)==

Line 328:

Line 657:

:''Alternatives''<br>

:''Alternatives''<br>

:If the agency creating the data has established in-house guidelines for capitalization, or has designated a published style manual, etc., (e.g., ''The Chicago Manual of Style'') as its preferred guide, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of appendix A.</blockquote>

:If the agency creating the data has established in-house guidelines for capitalization, or has designated a published style manual, etc., (e.g., ''The Chicago Manual of Style'') as its preferred guide, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of appendix A.</blockquote>

+

There is no citation here to any particular edition of CMOS, so no change is needed.<br>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

−

There is no citation here to any particular edition of CMOS, so no change is needed.

'''A.10 General Guideline'''<br>

'''A.10 General Guideline'''<br>

The guidelines for English-language capitalization basically follow those of the ''Chicago Manual of Style''.[1] Certain guidelines that differ have been modified to conform to the requirements of bibliographic records and long-standing cataloguing practice.<br>

The guidelines for English-language capitalization basically follow those of the ''Chicago Manual of Style''.[1] Certain guidelines that differ have been modified to conform to the requirements of bibliographic records and long-standing cataloguing practice.<br>

It is not clear why a particular edition was cited here. Should we recommend removal of the citation of a particular edition and simply say "the most recent edition?" Or should we recommend changing this every time the text is reviewed against a new edition?

+

<p>It is not clear why a particular edition was cited here. Should we recommend removal of the citation of a particular edition and simply say "the most recent edition?" Or should we recommend changing this every time the text is reviewed against a new edition?

−

--[[User:John Hostage|John Hostage]] 15:02, 1 March 2012 (CST)

+

--P. Dragon, 4 May 2012<br>

+

:

+

I was thinking about that question as well. On the one hand, it seems wise to cite a particular edition because if CMOS drastically changed its practices in a future edition, we might not want to follow it in RDA. On the other hand, it just says we "basically follow" CMOS, so maybe it's not so important to cite a particular edition. --[[User:John Hostage|John Hostage]] 15:45, 4 May 2012 (CDT)

Revision as of 10:06, 7 May 2013

To enter your comments, click on link where you want to comment.

Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.

Charge

Review the impact of changes in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., on RDA instructions and examples and propose appropriate revisions to RDA. The text of RDA is expected to conform to the Manual, and changes to the RDA Editor’s Guide may be needed. Further, data recorded following RDA instructions is expected to conform to the Manual in details not specifically covered by RDA instructions. In particular, the task force should review the provisions on capitalization in the Manual, which might require revisions to Appendix A of RDA and relevant examples.

The task force should submit an interim report at the 2012 ALA Annual Conference and a final report at least a month prior to the 2013 ALA Midwinter Meeting.

Q. If etc. falls at the end of a title of a work, should it be capitalized or left lowercased? The argument against capitalization is that the et part of the abbreviation is a conjunction and the c part represents the final word (cetera). No one here argues for etC., of course, but my argument is that once et cetera is abbreviated to etc. the two words become one, so that etc. is therefore the last word, not the last two words, in the headline or title, and that it should be capitalized as Etc.

A. I like your reasoning, especially if the word is important to the title: “Murder Etc.” On the other hand, by reversing your logic you might get away with lowercasing when etc. is an insignificant, tacked-on ending (pace CMOS 8.167): “Schneeweisschean Applications of Jungian Typologies: Dopey, Happy, Bashful, Grumpy, etc.”

JH: This seems to assume that etc. would not be capitalized in the middle of a title. The question comes up in relation to the rule for capitalizing the last word of a title. Note that "etc." is not capitalized in the example before this one, where it falls in the middle of the section title (Date, Name, Number, etc., ...). Also, that example is not a section title in the published text of RDA 2.3.1.4, but a paragraph header with sentence style capitalization, but this does not detract from its value as an example.

Current text:section 4.2

coordinate phases

Changed text:coordinate phrases

Rationale: typo

Current text:section 8

chapter 17

Changed text:chapter 14

Other references to CMOS chapters seem to be correct.

Punctuation changes (Chamya)

7.17.3.3

Current text: black and white sequences

Changed text: black-and-white sequences

Rationale (cite CMOS): 7.85

A.27

Current text: Yellow Stained cotton (market grade)

Changed text: Yellow-Stained cotton (market grade)

Rationale (cite CMOS): 7.85

Comment: Not sure if the "market grade" business has any bearing on whether or not "Yellow Stained" should really be hyphenated.

On the other hand, the official market grade name seems to be written without a hyphen as Yellow Stained (7 CFR 28.441).
--John Hostage 04:07, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

B.11

Current text: U.S.

Changed text: US

Rationale (cite CMOS): 10.4

Note: I realize the weight of my suggestion and, thus, don't expect it to go anywhere. I did want to cite it, though, as a change that would technically be needed to make RDA conform to the Chicago Manual of Style. (In this case, it's probably preferable for RDA to stray from the CMOS.)

By weight of your suggestion do you mean the potential impact on the authority file if headings were actually to be changed? I agree that it is unlikely for changes that impact the authority file to be undertaken anytime soon (nor would they exactly be a good use of anybody's time). It's good to cite, though, just for information purposes. --Dragon 5/10/12

CMOS is designed for publications and not for cataloging. 10.4 also says that for publications using traditional abbreviations for states, as RDA does, "U.S." may be used. So there is no need for a change in RDA B.11. --John Hostage 04:07, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

Capitalization changes (Dominique)

1.1.3

Current text: Web

Changed text: web

Rationale (cite CMOS): 7.76

Also found in instructions: 2.3.6.3, 2.13.1.3, 6.27.1.5, Glossary: single unit, (but not World Wide Web in 27.1.1.3)

If the guidelines require the capitalization of a hyphenated compound, capitalize the first part, and capitalize the second, etc., part if it is a noun or a proper adjective or if it has the same force as the first part.

Do not capitalize the second part if it modifies the first part or if the two parts constitute a single word.

Changed text:

If the guidelines require the capitalization of a hyphenated compound, capitalize the first part.

Capitalize the second, etc., part unless it is an article, a preposition, or a coordinating conjunction, or if it modifies the first part in musical key symbols.

Unless it is a proper name or adjective, do not capitalize the second, etc., part if the first part is a prefix, or if it cannot stand by itself.

Capitalize the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number or simple fraction.

Rationale (cite CMOS):

8.159

Note:

1. RDA A.29 rule follows CMOS15 8.169 simple rule for hyphenated compounds in titles. This simple rule does not appear in CMOS16. The CMOS15 tradional rule for hyphenated compounds in headline-style titles (8.170) is the only option that has been carried over into CMOS16 (8.159). It has been updated to also include a rule for hyphenated spelled-out numbers/fractions.

2. These rules are for hyphenated compounds in headline-style titles but have been incorporated to other rules where capitalization is required, see for ex. Forty-Second Street below.

All the hyphenated terms below need to be changed if the RDA rule for hyphenated compounds is changed:

A.29

Current text: Twenty-five

Changed text: Twenty-Five

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.159

Note: this example needs to be moved with the previous group of examples.

A.29

Current text: French-speaking

Changed text: French-Speaking

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.159

Note:
This example needs to be moved with the previous group of examples

A.14

Current text: Forty-second Street

Changed text: Forty-Second Street

Rationale (cite CMOS): See example in 9.52

A.11.4

Current text: John the Twenty-third

Changed text: John the Twenty-Third (?)

Rationale (cite CMOS):
8.159 (no example in CMOS16 with spelled-out numbers in names of monarchs and popes spelled out. Rule 9.42 says:” Sovereigns, emperors, popes, and Orthodox patriarchs with the same name are differentiated by numerals, traditionally roman.” But that’s not a new rule. It was also in CMOS15)

A.14.

Current text:

Capitalize the name of a building, monument, or other structure; and the name of a road or street. Do not capitalize words such as avenue, bridge, hotel, and park when they are used alone…

Changed text:

Capitalize the name of a building, monument, or other structure; and the name of a road or street. Do not capitalize generic terms when they are used alone but capitalize them when they are used as part of a plural name. [I made a correction: capitalized => capitalize Ian F. 5/18/12]

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.55

Note: an example such as Fifty-Seventh and Fifty-Fifth Streets should be added

A.16.2

Current text: Twenty-first Regiment of U.S. Infantry

Changed text: Twenty-First Regiment of U.S. Infantry

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.111

A.16.2

Current text: Congress; the Ninety-fifth Congress (but congressional)

Changed text: Congress; the Ninety-Fifth Congress (but congressional)

Rationale (cite CMOS): See example in 8.61

A.16.5.

Current text:
Fifty-second Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association

Changed text:
Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association

Capitalize a plural generic term when it precedes the distinctive nouns in two or more proper names. Do not capitalize the generic term when it follows the nouns.

Changed text:

Capitalize a plural generic term when it precedes or follows the distinctive nouns in two or more proper names.

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.52, 8.55, 8.112

A.10

Current text: Authorized and Revised versions

Changed text: Authorized and Revised Versions

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.52, 8.55, 8.112

Note: This example needs to be moved with the previous set of example. But this is a strange example. I am not sure when Authorized Version and Revised Version could be considered proper names. [surely this refers to the Bible? Though I agree that the two phrases are not necessarily proper names. This is borderline. Ian F. 5/18/12]

An example like American and French Revolutions would be much clearer. [But "American and French Revolutions" does not contain a generic term, am I right? Ian F. 5/18/12]

“Industry and Trade departments” needs to remain where it is because the proper names are Department of Industry and Department of Trade. ["Department of Industry" and "Department of Trade" may be the official proper names, but "Industry and Trade departments" looks to me like a conflation of two unofficial but still nevertheless valid proper names, i.e. "Industry Department" and "Trade Department". Ian F. 5/18/12]

The example doesn't say which country the Industry and Trade Departments are supposed to be from, so it is idle speculation to say what the "official" names are. The point of A.10 is to make a distinction between a generic term (i.e. common to 2 or more proper names) occurring before or after the names. So the example should be Industry and Trade Departments to follow CMOS practice in similar situations. Authorized Version is capitalized is capitalized according to CMOS 8.103, so Authorized and Revised Versions would be correct.
--John Hostage 05:13, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

Authorized access points representing the signatories to an agreement for: Memorandum of agreement between the government of the province of Ontario and the government of Canada pursuant to section 4(3) of the Anti-Inflation Act

Changed text: Anti-inflation Act (?)

Authorized access points representing the signatories to an agreement for: Memorandum of agreement between the government of the province of Ontario and the government of Canada pursuant to section 4(3) of the Anti-inflation Act

Rationale: 8.159
Note: Also in 6.29.1.18

6.30.2.2

Current text: Forty-sixth

Three Psalms. Contains the Eighth, Forty-sixth, and One hundredth Psalm

Changed text: Forty-Sixth (?)

Three Psalms. Contains the Eighth, Forty-Sixth, and One hundredth Psalm [I think this was intended the second time around: "Three Psalms. Contains the Eighth, Forty-Sixth, and One Hundredth Psalm" Ian F. 5/18/12]

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.159. 8.104 explains that Psalms should be capitalized but does not show a numbered psalm. 8.106 Prayers, creeds, and such lists: "Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses"). But it could be that CMOS considers this a headline-style title.

6.2.2.4

Current text: pre-Raphaelite

Preferred title for work by William Gaunt later published under the title: The pre-Raphaelite dream

Changed text: Pre-Raphaelite

Preferred title for work by William Gaunt later published under the title: The Pre-Raphaelite dream

Rationale (cite CMOS): 8.78

Note: Not a change from CMOS15 to 16. I could not find a rule for capitalization of movements and styles in RDA. RDA A.19 says to capitalize names of historical and cultural events and periods.

9.2.2.25
Current text: Book-keeping
A Teacher of Book-keeping
Statement of responsibility: by a Teacher of Book-keeping

Changed text: Book-Keeping
A Teacher of Book-Keeping
Statement of responsibility: by a Teacher of Book-Keeping

Rationale (Cite CMOS): 8.159

---
Not sure:
3.20.1.3 Filmslip mounted in rigid format for use with Phono-viewer

Should it be Phono-Viewer?

Etc. or etc. in headline-style titles

In headline-style titles “etc.” is usually found in RDA as “Etc.” But in Appendix D and E, “etc.” is usually found as “etc.” in the column on the right. On the column on the left, which does not follow headline-style titles “etc.” is usually found correctly as “etc.” However, in one case, it is found as “Etc.”

Q. If etc. falls at the end of a title of a work, should it be capitalized or left lowercased? The argument against capitalization is that the et part of the abbreviation is a conjunction and the c part represents the final word (cetera). No one here argues for etC., of course, but my argument is that once et cetera is abbreviated to etc. the two words become one, so that etc. is therefore the last word, not the last two words, in the headline or title, and that it should be capitalized as Etc.

A. I like your reasoning, especially if the word is important to the title: “Murder Etc.” On the other hand, by reversing your logic you might get away with lowercasing when etc. is an insignificant, tacked-on ending (pace CMOS 8.167): “Schneeweisschean Applications of Jungian Typologies: Dopey, Happy, Bashful, Grumpy, etc.”

CDROM in 2.20.10.3 and 3.20.1.3 but CD-ROM in 2.20.2.3, 3.20.1.3, 25.1.1.3, 27.1.1.3, 19.2.1.3, and Glossary. Does it matter?

Example in 3.20.1.3 is probably a transcription, but otherwise it should be CD-ROM, IMHO. --John Hostage 05:13, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

Italicization changes (Ian)

Current text:
Changed text:
Rationale (cite CMOS):

Citations changes (Ian)

Current text:
Changed text:
Rationale (cite CMOS):

Other changes (Patricia)

Current text:
Changed text:
Rationale (cite CMOS):
The only other "change" mentioned in some sources is not really a change, but rather a continued recommendation that "they" not be used in place of "he or she." In general, bias-free language has been emphasized in CMOS16. A quick search of RDA did not reveal any slip-ups in this regard.

[I found one typo to be reported, the omission of a closing parens:
A.18 Names of Documents Marshall Plan (but the plan
Ian F. 5/18/12]

Where the Chicago Manual is mentioned in RDA (Patricia)

Current text:
Changed text:
Rationale (cite CMOS):

1.7.1 General Guidelines on Transcription
When the instructions in chapters 2–4 specify transcription of an element as it appears on the source of information, apply the general guidelines on capitalization, punctuation, symbols, abbreviations, etc., given under 1.7.2–1.7.9. When the guidelines given under 1.7.2–1.7.9 refer to an appendix, apply the additional instructions given in that appendix as applicable to the element being transcribed.

Alternatives

If the agency creating the data has established in-house guidelines for capitalization, punctuation, numerals, symbols, abbreviations, etc., or has designated a published style manual, etc., (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style) as its preferred guide, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of the instructions given under 1.7.2–1.7.9 and in the appendices.

There is no citation here to any particular edition of CMOS, so no change is needed.

1.10.2 Capitalization
Apply the instructions on the capitalization of notes given in appendix A (A.8).

Alternatives

If the agency creating the data has established in-house guidelines for capitalization, or has designated a published style manual, etc., (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style) as its preferred guide, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of appendix A.

There is no citation here to any particular edition of CMOS, so no change is needed.

A.10 General Guideline
The guidelines for English-language capitalization basically follow those of the Chicago Manual of Style.[1] Certain guidelines that differ have been modified to conform to the requirements of bibliographic records and long-standing cataloguing practice.

It is not clear why a particular edition was cited here. Should we recommend removal of the citation of a particular edition and simply say "the most recent edition?" Or should we recommend changing this every time the text is reviewed against a new edition?
--P. Dragon, 4 May 2012

I was thinking about that question as well. On the one hand, it seems wise to cite a particular edition because if CMOS drastically changed its practices in a future edition, we might not want to follow it in RDA. On the other hand, it just says we "basically follow" CMOS, so maybe it's not so important to cite a particular edition. --John Hostage 15:45, 4 May 2012 (CDT)